Youth Decisions.

Bert McCracken:

Although Alcohol and Tattoos and Piercings I do believe still should have limits because the young body shouldn't have to deal with these things till its matured enough. Although tattoos I think should be lowered to 16 with parental consent.

Yeah alcohol has an age restriction for a very good reason. No matter how mature you are mentally when your a teen your body isn't done developing.
Anyway, where I live you can get a tattoo at 16 with parental consent. Still I think that's a little young. When your sixteen you may think a tattoo is something that you will want forever, but when your 25 and your not hired for a job because you have a tattoo you may feel differently. Especially if you get a very visible tattoo.

Bert McCracken:

My parents decided that they'd expose me to somethings early, I've been watching 'adult' programs like South Park since i was 5, they knew I wouldn't understand but it helps that kids aren't shielded so much that they dont know how to make the right decisions.

So are you saying that children who watch "adult" programs are going to be more capable of making "right decisions" when they're older?

Mindfuck:

So are you saying that children who watch "adult" programs are going to be more capable of making "right decisions" when they're older?

If they want to show their children these things, it shows that you needent shield your child in order to make the right decisions.
Because I know some parents that wont even let their kids watch PG things even though its alright, that they think their child will grow up to be rapists, anything with sexual jokes. It gives children also a bit more well, boasting and self confidence you know the whole "my mom lets me _____" that way the parent can teach their child to be more humble and make the right desicions with this "power" (its usually a power if you've watched something 'adult' when you're 9 or 10 ) it helps alot I think in the areas of giving the kids more self confidence to make their own decisions and the parent to help guide them.

Eponine:

Bert McCracken:

Although Alcohol and Tattoos and Piercings I do believe still should have limits because the young body shouldn't have to deal with these things till its matured enough. Although tattoos I think should be lowered to 16 with parental consent.

Yeah alcohol has an age restriction for a very good reason. No matter how mature you are mentally when your a teen your body isn't done developing.
Anyway, where I live you can get a tattoo at 16 with parental consent. Still I think that's a little young. When your sixteen you may think a tattoo is something that you will want forever, but when your 25 and your not hired for a job because you have a tattoo you may feel differently. Especially if you get a very visible tattoo.

Yes I understand where you're coming from but thats again the youths decision, in australia where I live its 18, full stop. It annoyed me a bit because I had saved up to get one when I turned 16 and I had thought this through, this is another "Youth Decision" maybe they should have a good enough reason to get one but indeed that opens to interpretation "I need to get one to be mature"
because everyone has different outlooks on what a good reason is

Bert McCracken:

Yes I understand where you're coming from but thats again the youths decision, in australia where I live its 18, full stop. It annoyed me a bit because I had saved up to get one when I turned 16 and I had thought this through, this is another "Youth Decision" maybe they should have a good enough reason to get one but indeed that opens to interpretation "I need to get one to be mature"
because everyone has different outlooks on what a good reason is

Well something like a tattoo, I don't see the problem in waiting two more years to get one, you might change your mind or you might not, but there's no harm in having to wait. I had to wait till I was fourteen just to get my ears pierced.

And I don't get your reasoning on letting young children watching more adult tv/movies. I would never let a nine year old see a movie like, say, 28 Weeks Later.

Reinvent Love.:

It's not about age, it's about maturity.

i agree...

I think with drinking alcohol, if you understand what you are doing (ie, the health consequences of drinking, what might happen if you get drunk etc etc) and you know that you can control that, then you can drink. I'm 16, and I drink. I drink quite a lot, and I have quite a high tolerance. I make sure that I only drink with friends and people with whom I wouldn't feel embarressed or in danger around. I never get drunk, and I know when to stop. I've been drinking since I was 14, and where I currently live the legal age is 16 with a meal, and 18 otherwise. I think if you are fully clued up, and you can control it, then you can drink from a much younger age, such as 14. If you are 27, 35, 80, and you still don't know when to stop, then you shouldn't drink. As long as you know what the consequences are, and you can prevent them to a certain degree, then yes, I think you should be able to drink, if you don't, then no matter what age you are, I think you should stay away from alcohol.

It's the same with tattoos. If you have wanted it for an extreme length of time, several years, then once you are old enough to understand that it's not going away, you might not be able to get a job with it, and you have wanted it for long enough that you wont change your mind, then you can get it. I want a tattoo, and I've wanted it for about 2 years now, and I could get one now in certain places, but I have decided to wait till I am 18, and then decide if I still want it. If I do, then it will be 5 years that I've wanted it for, and I'm less likely to change my mind about it.

As long as you know what the consequences of you actions are, then I think you are old enough to do those actions. Legal ages are in place in order to stop the people who think that they know the consequences, but really they don't, and to stop the people who don't care about them. I don't agree with the legal drinking age of 21, I think 16-18 is a good age, because many people start drinking earlier, and it doesn't take to 21 to know that excessive drinking will kill you, and getting drunk is stupid and dangerous.

Other age restrictions, such as driving, are in place because of responsibility. I don't really mind what age you can drive at, as long as you can get around in some other fashion. 16 is a good age, in my opinion, because you can start a family, and the responsibilty of raising a child is far greater than that of driving however-many-tons of metal down a road. In some countries the age of consent is 14, which in my opinion is too low, because a child is a full time job, and I feel that at 14, you still need to live a bit.

sorry it's so long...

ChipmunkOnKetamine:

I think with drinking alcohol, if you understand what you are doing (ie, the health consequences of drinking, what might happen if you get drunk etc etc) and you know that you can control that, then you can drink. I'm 16, and I drink. I drink quite a lot, and I have quite a high tolerance. I make sure that I only drink with friends and people with whom I wouldn't feel embarressed or in danger around. I never get drunk, and I know when to stop. I've been drinking since I was 14, and where I currently live the legal age is 16 with a meal, and 18 otherwise. I think if you are fully clued up, and you can control it, then you can drink from a much younger age, such as 14. If you are 27, 35, 80, and you still don't know when to stop, then you shouldn't drink. As long as you know what the consequences are, and you can prevent them to a certain degree, then yes, I think you should be able to drink, if you don't, then no matter what age you are, I think you should stay away from alcohol.

Just because a 14 year old 'knows' about the consequences of alcohol and the effect it can have on people, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to drink. Alcohol, if drunk excessively, can be adverse for anyone - but alcohol in general has a bad physical effect on teenagers, not just in copious amounts. It effects their brain development and stunts their growth. If a 14 year old were to drink regularly, then it would have a bad effect on them - much worse effect than it would have on, say, a 22 year old. Or probably even an 18 year old.

Also, just because one may have a "high tolerance" of alcohol does not in any way cancel out the effects of it. The only difference is, someone who has a high tolerance of alcohol doesn't feel the effect of the alcohol until they've drunken a lot more alcohol than they should have. So in essence, if a teenager had high tolerance to alcohol it probably would be worse because they wouldn't feel drunk until they've had way over a normal person's limit.

Mindfuck:

Just because a 14 year old 'knows' about the consequences of alcohol and the effect it can have on people, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to drink. Alcohol, if drunk excessively, can be adverse for anyone - but alcohol in general has a bad physical effect on teenagers, not just in copious amounts. It effects their brain development and stunts their growth. If a 14 year old were to drink regularly, then it would have a bad effect on them - much worse effect than it would have on, say, a 22 year old. Or probably even an 18 year old.

That is an effect of alcohol, and if a 14-year-old knows that that will happen, and therefore they drink very small amounts, which although will have an effect, will have less of an effect than large amount. Yes, it will effect them, but they can make an informed decision, and from that decision, they can decide to drink very little, very rarely.

Mindfuck:

Also, just because one may have a "high tolerance" of alcohol does not in any way cancel out the effects of it. The only difference is, someone who has a high tolerance of alcohol doesn't feel the effect of the alcohol until they've drunken a lot more alcohol than they should have. So in essence, if a teenager had high tolerance to alcohol it probably would be worse because they wouldn't feel drunk until they've had way over a normal person's limit.[/size][/font]

Yes, that is true. But if said teenager knows that it is detrimental to their health and development, then as with the 14-year-old above, they will drink less. The benefit of having a higher tolerance is that they are less likely to get drunk, and 'do something stupid', such as get into a fight, or an illegal minicab. Without getting drunk, although the alcohol is harming you inside, you are physically safer. If two people drink the same amount, and one has a high tolerance, and one has a lower tolerance, and the latter gets drunk, the former is better off, so to speak, because they are less vulnerable.

The point I'm trying to make is that, no matter what the consequences are, as long as you know them, and you can act in a sensible way, then you can drink. If the 14yo, only drinks a small amount of low unit alcohol, once a month, then it isn't going to have a huge impact on their health. If a person knows to stop drinking before they are 'tipsy', let alone drunk, then although there insides are being affected, they are less likely to end up in a 'bad' situation.

Eponine:

And I don't get your reasoning on letting young children watching more adult tv/movies. I would never let a nine year old see a movie like, say, 28 Weeks Later.

Well, South Park is hardly the same as 28 Weeks Later, in that there is no actual gore involved - just animation. She isn't making a blanket statement. I completely get what she is saying - give your children the freedom to watch a few shows with their parents, to gain the self-confidence you get when you feel like you're making your own "grown up choices" (Because that's what watching those shows and such really is).

The point not being made is that parents can still let choices be made and stay in the circle. Using your example of South Park vs. 28 Weeks Later: obviously a parent could put their foot down and say "I let you watch South Park but you are NOT going to see that movie; I don't think you're old enough." Yes, there will be a healthy debate about that, but that's what a parent can and needs to do to be involved in their child's life. It doesn't have to be black-and-white; you can set boundaries and still let a child make their own choices.

Chris Martin:

Well, South Park is hardly the same as 28 Weeks Later, in that there is no actual gore involved - just animation. She isn't making a blanket statement. I completely get what she is saying - give your children the freedom to watch a few shows with their parents, to gain the self-confidence you get when you feel like you're making your own "grown up choices" (Because that's what watching those shows and such really is).

The point not being made is that parents can still let choices be made and stay in the circle. Using your example of South Park vs. 28 Weeks Later: obviously a parent could put their foot down and say "I let you watch South Park but you are NOT going to see that movie; I don't think you're old enough." Yes, there will be a healthy debate about that, but that's what a parent can and needs to do to be involved in their child's life. It doesn't have to be black-and-white; you can set boundaries and still let a child make their own choices.

I understand it now.
28 Weeks Later is also sort of an extreme example because the movie is so graphic. Personally I wouldn't want a child of mine to watch something like South Park either, but that's just how I am. I can't say the it would harm the child. it's really the parents choice.

ChipmunkOnKetamine:

The point I'm trying to make is that, no matter what the consequences are, as long as you know them, and you can act in a sensible way, then you can drink. If the 14yo, only drinks a small amount of low unit alcohol, once a month, then it isn't going to have a huge impact on their health. If a person knows to stop drinking before they are 'tipsy', let alone drunk, then although there insides are being affected, they are less likely to end up in a 'bad' situation.

Most 14 year olds don't act sensibly. For the most part they act very immature and can't be trusted to not get out of control if they where allowed to drink.
There's a law to protect you. It's not about limiting your freedom or anything like that, it's about protecting your health.
Just because you know the adverse effects on you (In my experience a lot of teenagers don't) doesn't mean you should be drinking at 14. Your body is still developing, especially your brain, and any drinking you do can harm you and stunt your growth. It's dangerous. Period.

Eponine:

ChipmunkOnKetamine:

The point I'm trying to make is that, no matter what the consequences are, as long as you know them, and you can act in a sensible way, then you can drink. If the 14yo, only drinks a small amount of low unit alcohol, once a month, then it isn't going to have a huge impact on their health. If a person knows to stop drinking before they are 'tipsy', let alone drunk, then although there insides are being affected, they are less likely to end up in a 'bad' situation.

Most 14 year olds don't act sensibly. For the most part they act very immature and can't be trusted to not get out of control if they where allowed to drink.
There's a law to protect you. It's not about limiting your freedom or anything like that, it's about protecting your health.
Just because you know the adverse effects on you (In my experience a lot of teenagers don't) doesn't mean you should be drinking at 14. Your body is still developing, especially your brain, and any drinking you do can harm you and stunt your growth. It's dangerous. Period.

I know the law is there to protect you, and I'm fine with that, because as you say, most 14yos are not able to act sensilby, I just think it should be as in the UK, of 16 with a meal, and 18 otherwise; 21 to me seems a little extreme.

What I'm trying to say, and I don't think I've got it across very well, is that if a 14yo knows the consequences of drinking, and knows how to limit them, then they should be able to drink. Not all 14yos, but the ones that are mature enough to do so. If a person is 56, and still can't control their drinking, then they shouldn't. I'm not talking about changing the law, I'm just saying, that in my opinion, if you can drink sensibly, and with little adverse effect, then you should be able to, and if you can't, not matter what your age, you shouldn't.

ChipmunkOnKetamine:

I know the law is there to protect you, and I'm fine with that, because as you say, most 14yos are not able to act sensilby, I just think it should be as in the UK, of 16 with a meal, and 18 otherwise; 21 to me seems a little extreme.

What I'm trying to say, and I don't think I've got it across very well, is that if a 14yo knows the consequences of drinking, and knows how to limit them, then they should be able to drink. Not all 14yos, but the ones that are mature enough to do so. If a person is 56, and still can't control their drinking, then they shouldn't. I'm not talking about changing the law, I'm just saying, that in my opinion, if you can drink sensibly, and with little adverse effect, then you should be able to, and if you can't, not matter what your age, you shouldn't.

It wouldn't make it any less dangerous. No matter how mature you are, if you're young and you drink it's not good for you.
A person may be 'mature' and know the consequences of smoking but that doesn't make it any less harmful.
You are talking about changing the law. Or should 14 year olds be allowed to drink but still be arrested if they are caught?
Besides the fact that you can hardly have a law based on how 'mature' a person is. How would they be able to judge that? What kind of standard would they be comparing people too?
Different people have different opinions when it comes to what 'being mature' is.

ChipmunkOnKetamine:

I know the law is there to protect you, and I'm fine with that, because as you say, most 14yos are not able to act sensilby, I just think it should be as in the UK, of 16 with a meal, and 18 otherwise; 21 to me seems a little extreme.

What I'm trying to say, and I don't think I've got it across very well, is that if a 14yo knows the consequences of drinking, and knows how to limit them, then they should be able to drink. Not all 14yos, but the ones that are mature enough to do so. If a person is 56, and still can't control their drinking, then they shouldn't. I'm not talking about changing the law, I'm just saying, that in my opinion, if you can drink sensibly, and with little adverse effect, then you should be able to, and if you can't, not matter what your age, you shouldn't.

While it's true that some 14 yr olds are maturer than others, how would the suppliers (pubs, restuarents ect) know how mature the teenager is?

I hope this makes sense to other people but there is no way to detirmine how mature a person is.